New Doc Review Request

[Charles R. Anderson]

On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 08:49:22PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> I have created a new document in our wiki system: "RPM Versioning".  This 
> document covers the naming scheme to use when creating legacy packages.  
> Please review and comment/change as necessary.  Thanks!

Sometimes during the QA/testing process, it is necessary to roll
updated packages multiple times to fix minor issues. For the conflict
resolution across distros case, it might be a good idea to specify a
minor release number so that as an update goes through revisions one
doesn't have to keep rechecking the entire distro universe.  Using
your example:

Red Hat Linux 7.2 	xsane-0.82-3.1.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.82-4.legacy.i386.rpm
Red Hat Linux 7.3 	xsane-0.84-2.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.84-9.legacy.i386.rpm
Red Hat Linux 8.0 	xsane-0.84-8.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.84-10.legacy.i386.rpm
Red Hat Linux 9 	xsane-0.89-3.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.89-4.legacy.i386.rpm

would become:

Red Hat Linux 7.2 	xsane-0.82-3.1.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.82-4.0.legacy.i386.rpm
Red Hat Linux 7.3 	xsane-0.84-2.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.84-9.0.legacy.i386.rpm
Red Hat Linux 8.0 	xsane-0.84-8.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.84-10.0.legacy.i386.rpm
Red Hat Linux 9 	xsane-0.89-3.i386.rpm -> xsane-0.89-4.0.legacy.i386.rpm

and the .0 could be incremented for each iteration of an update
undergoing QA/testing.  This would also help reduce "release
inflation" that might interfere with a future FC package's release
number that is as yet unknown (unless Red Hat will be checking
FedoraLegacy before coming up with new release numbers for future FC
packages?).

Come to think of it, why can't we just use the incremented minor
number always with the same major release number as the existing RH/FC
package?  Even if the existing release number has multiple components
separated with periods, can we not just add a .1 after all that and
keep incrementing that number for each legacy release?